Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Hawkins]

ToE in a nutshell is the use of an alternative approach under the circumstance that we humans cannot establish a scientific model simply because it takes too long for an end-to-end repetition to complete for us to draw a legitimate scientific conclusion.

Alternatively speaking, ToE is about how multiple theories independently developed seem all point to the same conclusion. That's why we believe (of course with faith) that it's the situation.

 

[Hawkins]

Actually this is not so. Phenomena that repeat themselves are not intrinsic to science.

You may possibly be getting confused about what "repeatability" (or reproducibility) of observations means. It means that different observers can repeat the observation and get consistent results - basically a way of minimising the subjective element in any human observations of nature.

ToE makes predictions that are regularly shown correct, as any good scientific theory should.

For instance, it generally predicts correctly what degrees of relative similarity in DNA there should be between organisms, from the Phylogenetic Tree, a construction that is one product of the theory.

And it predicts what transitional fossils we should expect to find, and in rocks of what age, and we find them.

(Different observers generally have little trouble agreeing on degrees of DNA similarity, or on what the fossils are, so the need for repeatability poses no problem for the ToE.)

So, regardless of what you may have read in a creationist tract, it is quite wrong to imagine that it is qualitatively different from a theory like, say, the part of chemistry that accounts for the Periodic Table. That too makes predictions of what properties and behaviour we should expect from the elements and it too is fairly successful in doing what it does.

In fact it is the departures from the predictions that make for the most interesting chemistry. I have no doubt that the same is true of the theory of evolution.

You are exactly twisting the concept of predictability of science to fit for the non-scientific evolution.

If you try to claim that a human can be evolved from a single cell, you need to predict how it is so. That is, you are given a single cell organism, then you apply your theory to predictably evolve this single cell into a human. This is the predictability of science. It's not a arbitrary prediction on, say, lotto max!

Again, it's your twist of the concept of predictability that it makes ToE in the religious sector a satanic deception!

 

[exchemist]

You are exactly twisting the concept of predictability of science to fit for the non-scientific evolution.

OK, then can you explain to me what your concept of "predictability" is in science, and why you think it can be applied to the Periodic Table but not to the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Hawkins]

OK, then can you explain to me what your concept of "predictability" is in science, and why you think it can be applied to the Periodic Table but not to the Theory of Evolution?

If you try to claim that a human can be evolved from a single cell, you need to predict how it is so. That is, you are given a single cell organism, then you apply your theory to predictably evolve this single cell into a human. This is the predictability of science. It's not an arbitrary prediction on, say, lotto max!

Again, it's your twist of the concept of predictability that it makes ToE in the religious sector a satanic deception!

 

[QuestioningMind]

I propose a discussion about the evidence for this theory of origins. AKA, 'the theory of evolution', it is the most widely believed theory about life in the modern world. It is also criticized as being based on speculation and unproven assumptions.

I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & examining the evidence, we can evaluate it from the evidence, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers.

This will not be an easy task, as knee jerk reactions and talking points seem to dominate this debate. But i am willing to examine the science, if anyone else is.

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

What a completely disingenuous post. IF you genuinely are looking for scientifically based evidence for the ToE there are thousands of books and sites online that go into GREAT detail about the subject. There are sites with ACTUAL scientists who have spent their entire lives studying the subject where you could ask for clarification about the theory, yet you have chosen to bring the debate to a religious forums site.

Not only that, but when people here provide you with links from the experts that very concisely lay out the evidence, you claim that it's not good enough. That SOMEHOW you expect non-experts in the field to be able to condense the mountains of evidence into a couple of paragraphs that you can easily understand. Furthermore, when individuals have specifically asked you to define what you mean by valid scientific evidence you refuse... but SOMEHOW claim that DNA is not a sufficient answer.

The reality is that if you have actual verifiable evidence that DNA does NOT verify the ToE, as all those who have spent their lives studying the subject have, then there's a Nobel Prize in your future. But FIRST you need to go and debate this subject with the ACTUAL EXPERTS, instead of debating it with a bunch of laymen and laywomen.

What a silly and childish game you play.

 

[Hawkins]

What a completely disingenuous post. IF you genuinely are looking for scientifically based evidence for the ToE there are thousands of books and sites online that go into GREAT detail about the subject. There are sites with ACTUAL scientists who have spent their entire lives studying the subject where you could ask for clarification about the theory, yet you have chosen to bring the debate to a religious forums site.

Not only that, but when people here provide you with links from the experts that very concisely lay out the evidence, you claim that it's not good enough. That SOMEHOW you expect non-experts in the field to be able to condense the mountains of evidence into a couple of paragraphs that you can easily understand. Furthermore, when individuals have specifically asked you to define what you mean by valid scientific evidence you refuse... but SOMEHOW claim that DNA is not a sufficient answer.

The reality is that if you have actual verifiable evidence that DNA does NOT verify the ToE, as all those who have spent their lives studying the subject have, then there's a Nobel Prize in your future. But FIRST you need to go and debate this subject with the ACTUAL EXPERTS, instead of debating it with a bunch of laymen and laywomen.

What a silly and childish game you play.

Humans all work under limits, they are not omnipotent. For example, BBT is just a consensus because under today's human capability, that's already the best we can get. However, not until we can make a big bang repeatedly happens, we can't get to a confirmed scientific conclusion.

It's because the unconfirmable nature of BBT that other theories can co-exist!

 

[usfan]

Ok.. there seems to be interest in this topic. I'll try and respond to all who make reasoned points, when i have time for more than a one liner.

 

[ChristineM]

No need to be snippy.

Believe me, I look at it all. I'm well aware of darwins finches.

Who is being snappy?

Darwin visited the Galapagos in the 1830, this is a new species that did not exist when darwin was there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are exactly twisting the concept of predictability of science to fit for the non-scientific evolution.

If you try to claim that a human can be evolved from a single cell, you need to predict how it is so. That is, you are given a single cell organism, then you apply your theory to predictably evolve this single cell into a human. This is the predictability of science. It's not a arbitrary prediction on, say, lotto max!

Again, it's your twist of the concept of predictability that it makes ToE in the religious sector a satanic deception!

No, if anyone is twisting it is you. The scientific method consists of constructing models and testing them using observations. We can do that for the theory of evolution. And it is also falsifiable since those models will have tests that could show them to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see that there is some misunderstanding of the scientific method here. Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method. Please note this is not "written in stone":

 

[QuestioningMind]

Humans all work under limits, they are not omnipotent. For example, BBT is just a consensus because under today's human capability, that's already the best we can get. However, not until we can make a big bang repeatedly happens, we can't get to a confirmed scientific conclusion.

It's because the unconfirmable nature of BBT that other theories can co-exist!

You're correct, that's how the scientific method works. The BBT is a model for how the universe came to be in it's current form. Just like the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun is based on a model that explains how the bodies in our solar system interact with one another. And the theory of evolution is a model that explains the observable fact that life forms change over time. The way that all of these hypothesis have become scientific theories is because they do explain all of the verifiable evidence and there is no verifiable evidence that contradicts the model. Thus in order for any competing model to ever become a genuine theory it would also have to explain all of the verifiable evidence and have no verifiable evidence that contradicts the model.

Of course, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my assertions about the OP.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well, post it. That's what the OP wants.

I only see evidence for micro evolution....Mutations and subsequent natural selection has creative power to form different anatomical features? Let's see that evidence.

See my post #26 for what I consider the best evidence for macro-evolution. I will not call it proof, however, if God created the species independently, one must admit that he made them look as if they evolved from a common ancestor, which I explained in that post.

 

[Darkforbid]

Wow, lot's of supposed experts on ToE applied to humans.

You shouldn't do this! Nothing in nature has the the DNA peculiaritie we possess. It only leaves one logical answer which all evolutionist hate.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

See my post #26 for what I consider the best evidence for macro-evolution. I will not call it proof, however, if God created the species independently, one must admit that he made them look as if they evolved from a common ancestor, which I explained in that post.

Really? The first bird species looked like a therapod to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, lot's of supposed experts on ToE applied to humans.

You shouldn't do this! Nothing in nature has the the DNA peculiaritie we possess. It only leaves one logical answer which all evolutionist hate.

Really? I am totally unaware of this. I am sure that you can support this claim with links to peer reviewed sources.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Really? The first bird species looked like a therapod to you?

Many birds are anatomically very similar to dinosaurs, and even to other lizards. Look at the feet, tails (in some cases) and general body shape. In any case, there is clearly a nested structure to the tree of life. You cannot deny that chimpanzees and bonobos look somewhat anatomically similar to humans, and the fact that we have confirmed 97-98% DNA similarity between humans and these species of apes confirms a literal genetic relationship. We can use similar procedures for other related species.

Going further, I'm fairly sure you already classify leopards, tigers, lions, and domestic cats as being related, or dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyotes. These are separate species. The same principle applies to horses, donkeys, and mules. In fact, we can already see very obvious speciation occurring between horses and donkeys, as their offspring are sterile, and eventually, as their evolutionary paths continue to diverge, they will produce no offspring at all. Question: How do you define "kind?" I have never heard a satisfactory definition from a creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? The first bird species looked like a therapod to you?

I don't know. You tell me:

Do you need some more?

 

[Skwim]

It is appropriate to debate common descent as a religious belief, because that is what it is.

Common descent is a religious belief is it. So, what is the social organization of Common Descentism? And what unique religious practices such as rituals, sermons, commemorations or venerations, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditations, prayers, religious music, religious art, sacred dance, etc., etc., do Common Descenters engage in?

What I find amusing (for the umpteenth time no less) is the creationist's need to resort to challenging evolution in order to "prove" creationism is true, rather than relying on creationism itself to do the job. Not that it's surprising, after all how convincing is a mere, "god, said it so it must be right" argument? It's not. But trying to assert by implication that if evolution is wrong then creationism is defacto correct, is ludicrous. If nothing else, it lacks the second premise of the implied syllogism.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many birds are anatomically very similar to dinosaurs, and even to other lizards. Look at the feet, tails (in some cases) and general body shape. In any case, there is clearly a nested structure to the tree of life. You cannot deny that chimpanzees and bonobos look somewhat anatomically similar to humans, and the fact that we have confirmed 97-98% DNA similarity between humans and these species of apes confirms a literal genetic relationship. We can use similar procedures for other related species.

Going further, I'm fairly sure you already classify leopards, tigers, lions, and domestic cats as being related, or dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyotes. These are separate species. The same principle applies to horses, donkeys, and mules. In fact, we can already see very obvious speciation occurring between horses and donkeys, as their offspring are sterile, and eventually, as their evolutionary paths continue to diverge, they will produce no offspring at all. Question: How do you define "kind?" I have never heard a satisfactory definition from a creationist.

One quick note. The concept of "species" is not well defined either, but that does not give any relief to creationists, in fact it makes their position even harder to defend. That the observed boundaries between closely related species is "fuzzy" is predicted by the theory of evolution. Our inability at times to tell exactly what species an organism belongs to is a plus for the theory. On the other hand creationists should be able to come up with a definition with clear sharp boundaries and a way to tell if two different groups of animals are of the same "kind" or not.

 

[exchemist]

If you try to claim that a human can be evolved from a single cell, you need to predict how it is so. That is, you are given a single cell organism, then you apply your theory to predictably evolve this single cell into a human. This is the predictability of science. It's not an arbitrary prediction on, say, lotto max!

Again, it's your twist of the concept of predictability that it makes ToE in the religious sector a satanic deception!

I have not made any use of a concept of predictability. It is you that is using this term. Can you point me to a reference for this concept? Or have you made it up yourself? Because it seems to fail to understand the tools that the ToE gives us.

I have mentioned the Phylogenetic Tree. This, commonly known as the tree of life, is constructed by discovering relationships of descent between individual organisms. From this, for instance, we get the idea that Man is one of the family of apes, coming from an ancestor that diverged from other primates, which in turn diverged from other mammals, which in turn diverged from predecessors to the dinosaurs etc etc, right back to primitive chordates (vertebrates) and beyond. We have evidence, through DNA and intermediate fossils, for a lot of these individual steps. We can push this right back to the pre-Cambrian.

We can even go further back, using the evidence of biochemistry, to see that we are all part of the class of organisms called eukaryotes. This distinguishes all the plants, animals and fungi from other organisms such as bacteria. So it looks - to science - as if all these have a common ancestor. At least, the evidence is consistent with this and there is no evidence that contradicts it. Back beyond that it gets very difficult, admittedly, but the phylogenetic tree does indeed show a linkage all the way between single-celled eukaryotes and human beings.

There are gaps of course in such a long chain of organisms, over half a billion years or more. But the phylogenetic tree predicts what sort of organisms should fill in those gaps, and what age of rocks we should find them in. So palaeontologists can go and look for them. And, slowly but surely, they find them! That is science.

This process is in principle no different from the prediction in particle physics made by Prof Higgs about his eponymous boson, which was duly discovered a few years ago. There was a gap in the theory which he pointed out should be filled by this particle, he described its properties so that physicists could work out how to look for it - and they found it.

As for religion, the ToE is accepted by most of the mainstream denominations of Christianity. So clearly they do not think there is anything "Satanic" about it.